Access keys | Skip to primary navigation | Skip to secondary navigation | Skip to content | Skip to footer
Problems viewing this site

Community and issues analysis

A community and issue analysis clarifies the issues, level of concern and level of impact various community members have regarding the project. This information helps with your risk assessment and with developing a process of engagement. For an illustration of the findings of a community and issues analysis, view this partial examplePDF (19KB).

The analysis works best when it is undertaken by a small group of people rather than a single person, because the pooling of ideas helps participants arrive at a better analysis. However, the assumption here is that participants have some knowledge of, or expertise in, the project and/or communities associated with the project.

Some stakeholders are as interested in the engagement process as they are in the outcomes, so they will be interested in reflecting on the way you choose to engage.

The process

You can start with predetermined categories of community stakeholders or use the technique to provide you with categories afterwards. The principles used in community and issues analysis are the same regardless of the topic.

Step 1: List the community stakeholders

Explanation Implications
Identify an individual or group (people or organisations). If the group of stakeholders are similar in terms of their issues, skills, time/resources and level of concern, then grouping may be sufficient. Where the individual stakeholders within the group differ on any of these dimensions, then list them individually or group them in some meaningful way.
  • Arrange collective face-to-face or online events where stakeholders share similar issues, skills, time/resources or values.
  • Skilful facilitation of collective meetings and online chats is important where groups have dissimilar issues or values.
  • Separate events to manage the dynamics of dissimilar/conflicting groups working collaboratively.

Step 2: Consider the issues

Explanation Implications
The more you know of the situation or the more contact you have had with the community about the project, the better the information you will generate. The issues can be positive, negative or neutral. This information can be assessed if participants undertaking the analysis have prior relevant experience on the topic.
  • The greater the number of groups with similar issues or values, the more likely it is you will be able to arrange collective meetings with this stakeholder cluster.
  • The greater the number of groups with dissimilar issues, the more likely you are to experience potential conflict, so your facilitation of collective meetings will be important.
  • The greater the negative experience with dissimilar groups working collaboratively within a community, the more likely it is that separate meetings will be needed to manage the dynamics.

Step 3: Estimate the level of concern

Explanation Implications

The more concerned a sector or community is, the more likely they are to have strong views and seek to become involved in the engagement. One way of classifying concern is:

  • high
  • medium
  • low
  • indifferent.

Another is to consider whether communities will be directly or indirectly impacted by the outcomes.
  • The higher the level of concern, the more sensitive the issues are and the more interest the project will attract. Resources, timing and active participation will be key considerations.
  • The higher the level of concern, the more communities will actively seek to influence the outcomes. Consider being proactive. Approach these communities initially and seek their involvement and agreement to the processes of engagement.
  • Where communities are indifferent, encourage these communities to participate in the process of engagement through local meetings or random “cold-call” surveys (face-to-face, phone, electronic).

Step 4: Estimate the level of influence

Explanation Implications

Communities have differing abilities to influence project outcomes. A classification for level of influence might be:

  • low
  • medium
  • high.
  • The higher the number of potential influences, the more time and resources will be needed for the process of engagement.
  • Low. Inform, and develop strategies to include at least a representative sample of their views.
  • Medium. Inform, and invite involvement in consultation/active participation.
  • High. Inform, and actively seek their involvement in consultation/active participation. Consider face-to-face contact wherever possible and include them in risk assessment.

Step 5: Assess the level of confidence

Explanation Implications

Assess the confidence level regarding your understanding of the issues, level of concern and impact. A shorthand label is usually as good as long one, as those participating in the community analysis have a common understanding of what the labels mean. An example is:

  • Confident. This is an easy estimate based on clear and full information.
  • Some uncertainty. Most information was probably available and easy to interpret though there is a possibility some is unknown.
  • Much uncertainty. It is known that there is missing or fuzzy information.

The more uncertainty you find in the confidence assessments, the greater the need to conduct further research or reality checks, through further research with people in-house or through discussion with local government/state members or other people active in the community of interest.

It is important to remember, though, that engagement is a dynamic process and can never be fully controlled. For some deliberative activities, strong processes can provide confidence when there is uncertainty about the final outcomes.